"After more than two years of mania about Russia stealing the 2016 election for Trump and demonization [continuing] of anyone who questioned it, an embarrassing end may soon be near for the Russiagaters. The Russiagaters were wrong and they have done tremendous damage..."

Russiagate was not bullshit. Why should we take one false extreme over the other in this story?

We can believe both that the Russians were interfering to create instability AND that the US is a global threat to peace AND that the US is the greatest threat to Canada. Why must we assume either side is innocent?

I do not think that Russians intended to help Trump for his sake. Their interest in him was that he is a force of instability - once they realized this he became an objective of their campaign.

This is not a binary issue: the US is terrible. That the Russians are doing something terrible themselves does not change that. It is not even about which is worse -- why does it matter?

Why does it matter which side the Russians were interfering to help? There are well supported claims that it was all sides -- they were promoting division until they realized just how awful he could be and that he could get elected. The fact that the US has a record of being the state with the greatest level of interference outside since the colonial powers occupied countries does not excuse Russia's tactics. Even the fact that Russia may have done this due to previous aggression, does not make what Russia did okay. (Russia was turned into a hostile country when it could have turned the other way by the actions of the US, Europe and NATO -- they could have been welcomed when they were trying to engage instead of being attacked and threatened.)

I know this. But it does not make them not a threat now or excuse what they have done.

The fact that the greatest threat of election interference, and the greatest examples of it come from within, does not make their efforts okay.

I don't really give much of a crap about the US now since I do not consider their electoral process as worth recognition or redeemable, but Canada is also vulnerable. It has to be concerned about threats from within in terms of interference, it has to be concerned about distortions of the process through financing, and it has to be concerned about interference from outside.

Pretending the Russians did not interfere in elections is not good for Canada, just becuase the Russians are not the greatest threat from outside to Canada (that threat comes from the US). The experience with how the Russians did it exposes vulnerabilities. The motive of the Russians is actually less of a threat to Canada than the one from the US. They were seeking advantage from discord. Certainly the Russians could be a threat to Canada in the next election -- even if it is a much smaller threat than that coming from the US.

The threat from the US is also different: The Russians wanted advatnage by creating trouble. The US will likely use some of the same techniques to change the result in order to make the Canadian government more to its liking. What the Russians did may have been dirty but the technique they used against the US, if employed by US actors against Canada, threaten Canada's independence (whatever is left of it).

Pretending this did not happen is not going to help this. Taking sides is not either -- the techniques were cheap and can be used not just by a country whose leadership is hostile, but by any group within the country or outside.

Canada should be terrified about what the US right wing learned about this and how they might employ what they learned against us. So pretending that it was all bullshit is a very bad idea. Don't even think that the Russians invented this -- the US used this type of tacic before, even if they were offended that it was used against them later. The US has more money, a greater interest, and more groups independent of their government capable of doing this to Canada. Plus Canada is an easier target becuase we are a smaller market.

wasnt the first time a foreign country used divisive politics against the US

Britain did it by supporting the southern states in the American civil war over 150 years ago.

What I find funny about your comment is that you feel Russia is in the wrong for using divisive politics for tripping up the US

Russiagate was not bullshit. Why should we take one false extreme over the other in this story?

We can believe both that the Russians were interfering to create instability AND that the US is a global threat to peace AND that the US is the greatest threat to Canada. Why must we assume either side is innocent?

I do not think that Russians intended to help Trump for his sake. Their interest in him was that he is a force of instability - once they realized this he became an objective of their campaign.

This is not a binary issue: the US is terrible. That the Russians are doing something terrible themselves does not change that. It is not even about which is worse -- why does it matter?

Why does it matter which side the Russians were interfering to help? There are well supported claims that it was all sides -- they were promoting division until they realized just how awful he could be and that he could get elected. The fact that the US has a record of being the state with the greatest level of interference outside since the colonial powers occupied countries does not excuse Russia's tactics. Even the fact that Russia may have done this due to previous aggression, does not make what Russia did okay. (Russia was turned into a hostile country when it could have turned the other way by the actions of the US, Europe and NATO -- they could have been welcomed when they were trying to engage instead of being attacked and threatened.)

I know this. But it does not make them not a threat now or excuse what they have done.

The fact that the greatest threat of election interference, and the greatest examples of it come from within, does not make their efforts okay.

I don't really give much of a crap about the US now since I do not consider their electoral process as worth recognition or redeemable, but Canada is also vulnerable. It has to be concerned about threats from within in terms of interference, it has to be concerned about distortions of the process through financing, and it has to be concerned about interference from outside.

Pretending the Russians did not interfere in elections is not good for Canada, just becuase the Russians are not the greatest threat from outside to Canada (that threat comes from the US). The experience with how the Russians did it exposes vulnerabilities. The motive of the Russians is actually less of a threat to Canada than the one from the US. They were seeking advantage from discord. Certainly the Russians could be a threat to Canada in the next election -- even if it is a much smaller threat than that coming from the US.

The threat from the US is also different: The Russians wanted advatnage by creating trouble. The US will likely use some of the same techniques to change the result in order to make the Canadian government more to its liking. What the Russians did may have been dirty but the technique they used against the US, if employed by US actors against Canada, threaten Canada's independence (whatever is left of it).

Pretending this did not happen is not going to help this. Taking sides is not either -- the techniques were cheap and can be used not just by a country whose leadership is hostile, but by any group within the country or outside.

Canada should be terrified about what the US right wing learned about this and how they might employ what they learned against us. So pretending that it was all bullshit is a very bad idea. Don't even think that the Russians invented this -- the US used this type of tacic before, even if they were offended that it was used against them later. The US has more money, a greater interest, and more groups independent of their government capable of doing this to Canada. Plus Canada is an easier target becuase we are a smaller market.

wasnt the first time a foreign country used divisive politics against the US

Britain did it by supporting the southern states in the American civil war over 150 years ago.

What I find funny about your comment is that you feel Russia is in the wrong for using divisive politics for tripping up the US

Glad you could find something funny.

I am not just one of those who thinks two wrongs make a right. I actually think you cannot call something as wrong in one context and not another. I find it strange that you don't have a problem with a campaign of fraud and deception in order to dupe voters of another country as wrong.

It is equally wrong whether the US or Russia do it and equally wrong if it is done to a country that has a history of being wrong. The alternative to that position is hypocrisy.

I am leaning to a grand bargain between Trump and his swampdwellers, Israel, Saudi Arabia/UAE and Russia. Not as worried about what this is doing to the US, rather than nefarious plans for the Middle East. The US will work its way through this mess and find some ugly center/right equilibrium again. I just don't know what kind of shit is going to go down in the Middle East assuming Yemen is just the first step.

"Summarizing one of the themes in his new book, 'War With Russia? From Putin and Ukraine To Trump and Russiagate,' Stephen F Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at NYU and Princeton, argues that Russiagate allegations of Kremlin attempts to 'undermine American democracy' may themselves erode confidence in these institutions."

Dick Cheney’s former top national security aide has come under scrutiny from special counsel Robert Mueller, two people with knowledge of the probe tell The Daily Beast. It’s the latest sign that Mueller’s probe has expanded beyond the narrow bounds of Russian interference in American politics.

Mueller’s team has been looking into the communications and political dealings of John Hannah, the former Cheney adviser who later worked on Trump’s State Department transition team. This includes interactions with Lebanese-American businessman and fixer George Nader, who brokered meetings between foreign dignitaries and team Trump, and Joel Zamel, a self-proclaimed social media guru with deep ties to Israeli intelligence.

"While much has been said about the story of alleged and never proven collusion between Russia and the Trump administration, there's another side to the story that hasn't been given as much attention.

In early 2017, Politico ran a story regarding the government of Ukraine allegedly colluding with Hillary Clinton. That story was largely forgotten. One America's Jack Posobiec sat down the the Ukrainian whistleblower who brought the story to light."

"While much has been said about the story of alleged and never proven collusion between Russia and the Trump administration, there's another side to the story that hasn't been given as much attention.

In early 2017, Politico ran a story regarding the government of Ukraine allegedly colluding with Hillary Clinton. That story was largely forgotten. One America's Jack Posobiec sat down the the Ukrainian whistleblower who brought the story to light."

A well-placed source has told the Guardian that Manafort went to see Assange around March 2016. Months later WikiLeaks released a stash of Democratic emails stolen by Russian intelligence officers.

Manafort, 69, denies involvement in the hack and says the claim is “100% false”. His lawyers declined to answer the Guardian’s questions about the visits.

Manafort was jailed this year and was thought to have become a star cooperator in the Mueller inquiry. But on Monday Mueller said Manafort had repeatedly lied to the FBI, despite agreeing to cooperate two months ago in a plea deal. According to a court document, Manafort had committed “crimes and lies” on a “variety of subject matters”.

I know such quotes are able to convince large numbers of the population. Do you really think people here are that stupid???

It is a non-sequitor since the allegations of conspiracy invovle more than one person and even then a person can work quite closely without "meeting." that choice of words about a meeting is actually very suspicious. Besides which side are we to trust? I say none of them.

It is interesting to observe people's biases when they are claiming others have biases. So without evidence they claim there is nothing to the story. looks more like denial than the truth since it is clear the story and evidence has not been made public as yet. Still this stream of denials. Good to ask what position do the people making these denials have to be able to say that.

Now cue a great round of nonsequitors and what-aboutism. Statement that may be true but do not contradict the allegation or statements that are totally unknowable by the public and without proof.

Truth is when it comes to this story -- there is not enough out in public -yet- to definitively prove it either way. Still the cheerleaders for the TrumpManafort side argue that there is no need for an investigation. Their supporters parrot this even though they also fight agaisnt any attempt to let the facts come out through investigation.

WikiLeaks is adamantly denying that Assange ever met with Manafort. But they also adamantly denied ever communicating with Roger Stone. (We now know that they exchanged direct messages in October 2016.)

Like the msm and US intel agencies that promote it, die-hard devotees of the Russiagate conspiracy theory aren't interested in the actual truth of the thing, as evidenced by their constant advancement of dodgy and discredited pig-media concoctions. Anything to advance their political narrative no matter how specious or mendacious, even after 2 years of no real 'there-there' from the famous Iraq liar and public manipulationist Mueller . This is what neo-McCarthyism looks like. This is an American deep state agenda to fulminate more toxic Russophobia, more militarization and more war. As always there is no shortage of Canadian dupes who follow along conditioned and convinced if it's American it must be good. Pathetic really.

"With the CIA on point, US militarists are implementing Joseph Goebbels formula to reignite the Cold War. 'You tell a very big lie, and tell it over and over again, and it becomes the truth,' said Ron Ridenour, author of the Russian Peace Threat: Pentagon on Alert."

That's one difference between Trump's tweets and Babble. It's often hard to tell the difference.

While the disgusting Fake News is doing everything within their power not to report it that way, at least 3 major players are intimating that the Angry Mueller Gang of Dems is viciously telling witnesses to lie about facts & they will get relief. This is our Joseph McCarthy Era!

Robert Mueller has reached a new tentative deal with Michael Cohen, Trump's former personal attorney, who is expected to enter a guilty plea today in Federal court in Manhattan for misstatements to Congress about his contacts with Russians during the 2016 campaign.

"I think we'll look back on this day and see a bunch of bright people like Chris Hayes chanting 'Collusion' at news of Michael Cohen lying about Russia deal that *failed* & *never came close to happening* - a failure btw, that we learned about months before this bizarre day."

"Why Russiagate's new bombshells might not be that explosive. Just as the evidence used in Manafort's bank-and-tax-fraud case underscored that he worked against Russian interests in Ukraine, Flynn's indictment turns up another inconvenient fact for the collusion hopeful: The foreign government that Flynn colluded with on Trump's behalf - against the US government - is not Russia but Israel..."

"...The latest moves by Special Counsel Robert Mueller in the Russia investigation underscore the close coordination between the former FBI director and dominant factions of the military/intelligence establishment, which, in alliance with the Democratic Party, are using the fabricated charges of Russian 'meddling' and alleged Trump campaign collusion to pressure Trump into pursuing an ever more provocative and reckless policy against Russia.

The campaign is increasingly combined with an effort by Mueller to frame up WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on espionage or conspiracy charges. The aim is to force Assange from his enforced refuge at the Ecuadorian embassy in London so that British authorities can arrest him and extradite him to the US, where he already faces federal charges that carry a possible death sentence.

This week's moves by Mueller also highlights the reactionary substance of the Democratic Party's opposition to the right-wing Trump administration..."

"...The latest moves by Special Counsel Robert Mueller in the Russia investigation underscore the close coordination between the former FBI director and dominant factions of the military/intelligence establishment, which, in alliance with the Democratic Party, are using the fabricated charges of Russian 'meddling' and alleged Trump campaign collusion to pressure Trump into pursuing an ever more provocative and reckless policy against Russia.

So, Trump is such a foreign-policy maverick that the establishment has to go through the whole rigamarole of setting up a judicial investigation and arresting a bunch of his cronies, just to get him to toe the line on Russia?

In the 9/11 media theme, the crime was committed by less than 2 dozen young men, full of hate for the US, bent on destroying her. So they went out, learned how to fly multi million dollar hi tech jet planes, then hi jacked 4 jets simultaneous, and flew them like pros and changed the course of history. No mutant powers necessary.

In russia gate, there’s like a dozen guys, bent on destroying the US, and are able to crack every password and security measures to destroy the US democracy (better known as the most expensive over hyped coin toss in the world!)

Over the past year, the indictments, convictions, and guilty pleas have largely been connected, in one way or another, to Russia. But now, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office is preparing to reveal to the public a different side of his investigation. In court filings that are set to drop in early 2019, prosecutors will begin to unveil Middle Eastern countries’ attempts to influence American politics, three sources familiar with this side of the probe told The Daily Beast.

"The fact that Maria Butina was widely -- and I stress widely -- falsely portrayed as a spy, subjected to misogyny, and caged in solitary confinement w/no outcry, underscores the Russophobia & neo-McCarthyism that propels Russiagate. A lot of people should be ashamed."

Posters in this thread have often complained that only potential Russian influence on the 2016 election is being investigated. Now it seems that the special counsel is indeed looking into possible collusion with Israel, Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. Should be interesting.

edited to add: I noticed after posting that josh had already posted this link. Sorry for the extra noise.

She admitted to conspiring with Republican operative Paul Erickson and a Russian official, believed to be banker Alexander Torshin, to establish unofficial links between political figures in the U.S. and Russia that would benefit the Kremlin.

"...Human rights lawyer Dan Kovalik told RT that this is most likely a 'political case' and that the 30-year-old Butina is being used as a 'pawn' to sabotage US-Russia relations. 'If she had filed a piece of paper with the Attorney General's office, everything she did was legal,' defense lawyer Robert Driscoll told RT. 'This is more of a registration type of crime than an espionage crime, and yet the media and the government to some extent are treating it as an espionage crime..."

The Internet Research Agency troll farm focused much of its attention on black audiences, creating "an expansive cross-platform media mirage targeting the Black community, which shared and cross-promoted authentic Black media to create an immersive influence ecosystem," per the New Knowledge report. The group’s cultivation of sometimes-unsuspecting on-the-ground collaborators was "substantially more pronounced on Black-targeted accounts."

It engaged in voter suppression. New Knowledge said that "the suppression narratives were targeted almost exclusively at the Black community on Instagram and Facebook" in the lead-up to the 2016 election. The IRA simultaneously targeted right-leaning audiences with content raising fears of voter fraud.